We have a new government that is dedicated to austerity on the basis of its claim that ‘there is no money left'.
It seems like the right moment to draw attention to the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 again, and the recommendations included in it.
As this table shows, the recommendations in the Report suggest that maybe £90 billion of extra tax could be raised a year after allowing for the significant cost of removing some tax anomalies that are currently unfairly imposed on those with wealth and which would not be required if the overall tax system was made much fairer.
As the table also shows, I also identify how by changing the rules on tax relief on savings up to £100 billion of additional funding to fund investment capital could be secured.
I should also note that significant recommendations for reform of the administration of the tax system are made in the report, many of which are really important.
Why mention all this? Simply because this Report suggests that opportunities exist for Labour to fund any programme it could reasonably desire.
Every recommendation is detailed in the Report, of which versions of varying lengths are available here:
The point is, however, that choice is available. The only one that is unacceptable is doing nothing.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Would LINO even understand what you are proposing? It’s a fair question given that Reeves & co seem clueless. Also what would be the reaction of the PE pirates? – who seem to be calling the shots via B.Liar. These are all considerations.
Ms Reeves has not, so far, shown anything that suggests she will tear up the last Tory budget, scrap meaningless fiscal rules and be bold.
Certainly she is not likely to cast her eyes over you report.
Rather you sense that we will get the ” there’s no money” excuse. But we can use this super new fangled PPP process.
What she and Starmer may not be expecting is the public losing patience very quickly, demanding to know why are our schools, social services, NHS and so on are still not properly funded.
“demanding to know why are our […] and so on are still not properly funded.”
People don’t listen. Labour have only promised to “make things better for workers”. That’s just about half of the population.
The rest of us are watching the wheels fall off the handcart we expected to reach hell in.
Reeves, Starmer and Streeting need to keep up the ‘no money’ narrative .
How are they going to achieve the sale and leaseback of all OUR assets that their PE and corporate paymasters, with Bliar and Mandleson as handmaidens, have been grooming them for? Apparently 103 of the candidates that Labour put up are / were lobbyists. 103! So don’t expect these shills to be standing up for ‘the little people’ any time soon.
We have been herded into kleptocracy and worse, the public have actively voted for massive self harm whilst grinning all the way to the ballot bax.
Feels like the morning after the brexit vote.
Is there a list somewhere of who these 103 lobbyists are?
They are stupid beyond belief
Starmer and Reeves lack of intellectual inquiry into macroeconomics should automatically disqualify them from their jobs
This is from progressivepulse.org
The failing West has made it easy for Putin because its 40 year old neoliberal, Thatcherite poilicies have made most people’s lives progressively worse, and that is the fault of western democratic parties and their governments, who actually tell people that there is no alternative…
https://www.progressivepulse.org/brexit/difficult-to-dispute-this
There are academic studies out there that argue Brexit was a consequence of failed Thatcherite Neoliberalism. Hardly anybody of course in this economically and monetarily illiterate country wants to accept this argument. Given the Starmer government’s inevitable failure perhaps the argument will gain traction.
Reproducing this is very timely. Thank you.
Labour could deliver better public services with median income folk paying a tiny extra amount of tax…. but will they?
Overall, I am left wondering what our nation(s) have voted for….. and the honest answer is “We don’t know”. Fundamentally, the First Past the Post System tells us only about what people don’t want… and that is not good enough.
Of course, PR might deliver more Reform MPs but even here it is unclear – many Reform voters are registering a protest and, if they had a sniff at coalition government the protest vote might rethink. Or, if they did join a coalition they would be revealed as the charlatans they are and be booted out pretty quickly (as LDs were in 2015).
Only when we have PR (and Political Party fragmentation) will we know what we REALLY think.
Agreed
Despite their willfully blind approach to economics – they really will have to choice but to look at some of Richards’ proposals showing there is indeed money.
Unless, that is , they are prepared to see their popularity crash within a few months as they continue to wreck the economy and public services.
Even Will Hutton is moving in your direction Richard.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/30/labour-needs-billions-to-fund-its-plans-and-i-know-where-it-can-be-found
Sort of my way….
Hello,
Relatively new here, finding my way here after researching MMT.
Can you explain why you speak of “raising” money with these taxes?
Whilst I agree with all the elements of the report, and that these taxes should exist in order to remove wealth from where it has accumulated, does talking about them in terms of raising money to fund investments not just play into the whole myth around needing to raise taxes and then spend them?
Suspect I’m misunderstanding something, but keen to be enlightened!
Please read chapter 16 and the explanations of how the report integrates with the economy, and MMT. There is also discussion there on the role of tax in the government’s dical cycle.
A government of the nsort the UK has does not need to raise funds to pay for its spending. That is always true. As a matter of fact, all that spending is funded by new money. But unless the government raises tax revenue it would not cancel the imapct of that spending in the economy and inflation would inenvitably result. So revenue raising via taxation is fundamental to MMT.
But it is spend then tax, not tax and then spend, and that massivelky changes the focus of decision making.
I hope that helps.
Thanks.
I can’t help but feel we need a bigger shift in the way things are talked about in order to counteract the prevalent view of “Tax then Spend”.
e.g “opportunities exist for Labour to fund any programme” could be reworded to “oppurtunities exist for Labour to remove money to counteract their spending”. Pedantic, and probably unnecessary on a platform such as this when the vast majority understand the concept correctly, but just imagine how different things could be if that was how the discussion on taxes and spending went!
The trouble is no one would understand it
Listening to Rachel Reeve’s victory blather last night was a deeply depressing experience. Nothing she said provided any hope for anyone except corporates, venture capitalists and the very wealthy. Their proposition to fund change by growth arising out of nothing-trickles-down economics promises nothing but tragedy for those in any kind of need.
Agreed
The Tories never got round to actually saying that the NHS is broken so we will save it by offering it to the private sector. Now Wes Streeting seems to be on the brink of doing that for them. Is the spirit of Tory Blair back?
Yes
Offering the NHS to the private sector will be accepted by more of the electorate if done by a Labour government than if done by the Tories because the narrative that there is no choice will be believed by more people.
It is necessary to make sure that the fact that there is a choice is as widely known as possible.
I am not at all sure I follow your logic
Are you saying there will be more choice, or the appearance of it?
And are you saying that is a good thing, or not?
I was at the count in Sheffield.
A great night for us (Greens) – – specifically, 26% vote share in Sheffield Central, one of 40 seats nationally to be a strong second place; as well as the four wins.
Labour swept the board, of course.
But – oh, the irony (?) —
At the end of the night, the local Labour supporters, in high spirits, gathered together on the dais and sang “We’ll keep the Reg Flag flying here!”
Unfortunately I think all media cameras and video recorders were off by then, although one or two local journalists may have been still hanging around.
Is the phrase ‘useful idiot’ appropriate? But in an opposite sense to the revolutionary one…